DOCSLIB.ORG

Condition of Designated Sites

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Scottish Natural Heritage Condition of Designated Sites Contents Chapter Page Summary ii Condition of Designated Sites (Progress to March 2010) Site Condition Monitoring 1 Purpose of SCM 1 Sites covered by SCM 1 How is SCM implemented? 2 Assessment of condition 2 Activities and management measures in place 3 Summary results of the first cycle of SCM 3 Action taken following a finding of unfavourable status in the assessment 3 Natural features in Unfavourable condition – Scottish Government Targets 4 The 2010 Condition Target Achievement 4 Amphibians and Reptiles 6 Birds 10 Freshwater Fauna 18 Invertebrates 24 Mammals 30 Non-vascular Plants 36 Vascular Plants 42 Marine Habitats 48 Coastal 54 Machair 60 Fen, Marsh and Swamp 66 Lowland Grassland 72 Lowland Heath 78 Lowland Raised Bog 82 Standing Waters 86 Rivers and Streams 92 Woodlands 96 Upland Bogs 102 Upland Fen, Marsh and Swamp 106 Upland Grassland 112 Upland Heathland 118 Upland Inland Rock 124 Montane Habitats 128 Earth Science 134 www.snh.gov.uk i Scottish Natural Heritage Summary Background Scotland has a rich and important diversity of biological and geological features. Many of these species populations, habitats or earth science features are nationally and/ or internationally important and there is a series of nature conservation designations at national (Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)), European (Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Area (SPA)) and international (Ramsar) levels which seek to protect the best examples. There are a total of 1881 designated sites in Scotland, although their boundaries sometimes overlap, which host a total of 5437 designated natural features. In recognition of the part which these designated sites play in safeguarding and enhancing Scotland’s natural diversity, the Scottish Government set a Condition Target to achieve 95% of natural features in favourable condition by March 2010. The condition of features on designated sites in Scotland is determined by Scottish Natural Hertiage’s (SNH) Site Condition Monitoring (SCM) programme. SCM is a 6 year rolling programme of monitoring which aims to assess the condition of designated natural features. The results of the first cycle of SCM, which ran from 1999 to 2005, are summarised below and discussed in more detail in the following chapters. If a SCM assessment found a natural feature to be in unfavourable condition, follow up work was instigated to determine the causes (known as pressures) and to identify whether remedial management is possible. This was then discussed and agreed with private land managers and partner organisations, in the public sector and nature conservation non-Government organisations, and agreement sought on how the changes could best be put in place. The results of this work are also summarised below and covered in greater detail in subsequent chapters. Site Condition Monitoring The primary purpose of SCM is to determine the condition of the natural features within a designated site. That is, will the current management of the site and wider environmental influences be likely to maintain the habitat, species or geological feature in the medium to longer term. The framework for making an assessment is the Common Standards Monitoring Guidance, published by Joint Nature Conservation Committee, which provides a common approach to the monitoring of natural features across the whole of the United Kingdom. Although the types of natural features are extremely varied, the approach to monitoring each is broadly similar. For each natural feature, a set of ‘attributes’, or indicators of a healthy habitat, species population, or intact earth science feature, is derived from the Guidance. For individual natural feature attributes, site-specific targets are then set against which the condition of the feature can be judged. Fieldwork is then undertaken to assess the natural feature against those targets and from this to determine whether the natural feature is in favourable or unfavourable condition. The fieldwork also assesses whether the current management regime and wider environmental influences are likely to sustain the feature. During the period 1999 to 2005, SNH assessed the condition of 5011 (92%) of the 5437 identified natural features. The results showed that 71.4% of all features assessed were either in favourable condition, or unfavourable but recovering towards favourable condition. The results of monitoring in 2005 show that there was considerable variation between the proportion of the different feature types in favourable/recovering condition. Generally speaking, a greater proportion of earth science and species natural features were in favourable condition as compared to habitats. The results split down by broad category can be seen in Figure i. These 2005 results are used as the baseline against which progress towards the Scottish Government Condition Target has been measured. ii Condition of Designated Sites Figure i. shows that amongst species features, vascular plants had the lowest proportion of features in favourable/recovering condition. In many cases, the condition of the vascular plant natural feature reflected that of the habitat which supported it, as it was subjected to the same pressures. In upland areas, for example, the intensity of grazing commonly contributed to unfavourable condition in both the habitat and the vascular plant features. Turning to the habitats, grasslands, both upland and lowland, are the two with the lowest proportion of features in favourable/recovering condition, but the pressures on the sites tended to differ. In upland areas, over-grazing was the commonest factor for grasslands not achieving targets, whereas in the lowlands under-grazing or lack of active management was most common. Natural features in unfavourable condition – Scottish Government targets SCM acts as a trigger mechanism for follow-up work when an unfavourable assessment is concluded. This will include: – validation of the monitoring results to check that the current assessment wasn’t an atypical result. – in some cases, a check of the status of the natural feature when it was first notified – if the original basis for the designation is found to be flawed, the feature can be removed from the SSSI citation. – where the status of the natural feature is valid, an assessment of the management of the site in relation to the requirements of the feature. Where remedial management can be put in place on, or near the site, SNH staff engage with land managers and statutory bodies to identify the measures which can be put in place to address unfavourable condition in one or more features on a designated site. Such mechanisms to date have included Rural Stewardship Schemes, Scottish Forestry Grant Schemes, Natural Care Schemes, individual management agreements and latterly Scotland Rural Development Programme (SRDP) funding. Where the management on the site would seem to be sympathetic to the conservation interests, but the features are nevertheless failing (eg. due to pressures thought to be linked to climate change) – these are known as ‘no on-site remedy’ features. In some cases, the reasons for unfavourable condition will not be clear and further work will be needed to determine the best course of action to promote recovery of the feature. To measure progress towards the Scottish Government target of achieving 95% of natural features in favourable condition by March 2010: – the results of SCM are taken into account plus – actions which have been taken to put in place remedial management to improve the condition of the feature. For the purposes of the Condition Target, ‘favourable condition’ includes natural features which are in favourable condition, or are recovering, with the necessary management measures in place, so that in SNH’s expert judgment the land will in due course reach favourable condition. This means that as an interim measure, natural features where remedial management has been put in place to address all the known causes of unfavourable condition are counted as favourable until such time as a subsequent SCM assessment verifies the condition, or identifies further work which may be required to further improve condition. The 2005 SCM results set the baseline against which progress towards the Condition Target is measured. As a result of work undertaken by Area staff and partners, including private land managers, nature conservation non-Government organisations and other public sector bodies, 478 unfavourable natural features were considered to be in ‘recovering’ condition due to management changes by March 2010. This figure includes 196 features where remedial management has been put in place and follow up SCM has confirmed the condition as either favourable or unfavourable recovering. The remaining 282 features have remedial management in place, but follow-up SCM assessment has yet to be carried out. www.snh.gov.uk iii Since the 2005 baseline was set, a further 103 features have been assessed for the first time. Of these, 62 features were favourable/recovering and 41 were in unfavourable condition. In addition, 109 natural features, when investigated further, were found not to qualify for notification and were removed from the SSSI citation following the provisions of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004. The result is that a total of 5005 feature condition assessments were used to report on achievement against the 2010 Condition Target. Of the 5005 features assessed, by the end of March 2010, 78% were considered
Recommended publications
  • List of Vascular Plants Endemic to Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands 2020

    List of Vascular Plants Endemic to Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands 2020

    British & Irish Botany 2(3): 169-189, 2020 List of vascular plants endemic to Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands 2020 Timothy C.G. Rich Cardiff, U.K. Corresponding author: Tim Rich: [email protected] This pdf constitutes the Version of Record published on 31st August 2020 Abstract A list of 804 plants endemic to Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands is broken down by country. There are 659 taxa endemic to Britain, 20 to Ireland and three to the Channel Islands. There are 25 endemic sexual species and 26 sexual subspecies, the remainder are mostly critical apomictic taxa. Fifteen endemics (2%) are certainly or probably extinct in the wild. Keywords: England; Northern Ireland; Republic of Ireland; Scotland; Wales. Introduction This note provides a list of vascular plants endemic to Britain, Ireland and the Channel Islands, updating the lists in Rich et al. (1999), Dines (2008), Stroh et al. (2014) and Wyse Jackson et al. (2016). The list includes endemics of subspecific rank or above, but excludes infraspecific taxa of lower rank and hybrids (for the latter, see Stace et al., 2015). There are, of course, different taxonomic views on some of the taxa included. Nomenclature, taxonomic rank and endemic status follows Stace (2019), except for Hieracium (Sell & Murrell, 2006; McCosh & Rich, 2018), Ranunculus auricomus group (A. C. Leslie in Sell & Murrell, 2018), Rubus (Edees & Newton, 1988; Newton & Randall, 2004; Kurtto & Weber, 2009; Kurtto et al. 2010, and recent papers), Taraxacum (Dudman & Richards, 1997; Kirschner & Štepànek, 1998 and recent papers) and Ulmus (Sell & Murrell, 2018). Ulmus is included with some reservations, as many taxa are largely vegetative clones which may occasionally reproduce sexually and hence may not merit species status (cf.
  • ATBI De La Réserve Intégrale De Lauvitel

    ATBI De La Réserve Intégrale De Lauvitel

    A.T.B.I de la Réserve intégrale de Lauvitel (Le Bourg d’Oisans, Isère) © Yann Baillet / Association Flavia ADE État des lieux des connaissances au 1e janvier 2019 Jérôme FORÊT, Manon BASSET & Rémy MOINE Parc national des Écrins / Service scientifique Le Bourg d’Oisans, 23/01/2019 Table des matières A.T.B.I du Lauvitel, vers un inventaire généralisé de la biodiversité.....................................3 Présentation synthétique des résultats..................................................................................4 1. Aculéates (guêpes, abeilles, fourmis)................................................................................6 2. Coléoptères......................................................................................................................10 3. Papillons...........................................................................................................................14 4. Orthoptères......................................................................................................................20 5. Syrphes............................................................................................................................22 6. Araignées (Araneae)........................................................................................................25 7. Opilions............................................................................................................................27 8. Chilopodes (mille-pattes).................................................................................................29
  • Notes on Identification Works and Difficult and Under-Recorded Taxa

    Notes on Identification Works and Difficult and Under-Recorded Taxa

    Notes on identification works and difficult and under-recorded taxa P.A. Stroh, D.A. Pearman, F.J. Rumsey & K.J. Walker Contents Introduction 2 Identification works 3 Recording species, subspecies and hybrids for Atlas 2020 6 Notes on individual taxa 7 List of taxa 7 Widespread but under-recorded hybrids 31 Summary of recent name changes 33 Definition of Aggregates 39 1 Introduction The first edition of this guide (Preston, 1997) was based around the then newly published second edition of Stace (1997). Since then, a third edition (Stace, 2010) has been issued containing numerous taxonomic and nomenclatural changes as well as additions and exclusions to taxa listed in the second edition. Consequently, although the objective of this revised guide hast altered and much of the original text has been retained with only minor amendments, many new taxa have been included and there have been substantial alterations to the references listed. We are grateful to A.O. Chater and C.D. Preston for their comments on an earlier draft of these notes, and to the Biological Records Centre at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology for organising and funding the printing of this booklet. PAS, DAP, FJR, KJW June 2015 Suggested citation: Stroh, P.A., Pearman, D.P., Rumsey, F.J & Walker, K.J. 2015. Notes on identification works and some difficult and under-recorded taxa. Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland, Bristol. Front cover: Euphrasia pseudokerneri © F.J. Rumsey. 2 Identification works The standard flora for the Atlas 2020 project is edition 3 of C.A. Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (Cambridge University Press, 2010), from now on simply referred to in this guide as Stae; all recorders are urged to obtain a copy of this, although we suspect that many will already have a well-thumbed volume.
  • Pupillid Land Snails of Eastern North America*

    Pupillid Land Snails of Eastern North America*

    Amer. Malac. Bull. 28: 1-29 (2010) Pupillid land snails of eastern North America* Jeffrey C. Nekola1 and Brian F. Coles2 1 Department of Biology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87131, U.S.A. 2 Mollusca Section, Department of Biodiversity, National Museum of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF10 3NP, U.K. Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract: The Pupillidae form an important component of eastern North American land snail biodiversity, representing approx. 12% of the entire fauna, 25-75% of all species and individuals at regional scales, at least 30% of the species diversity, and 33% of individuals within any given site. In some regions pupillids represent 80-100% of total molluscan diversity within sites, notably in taiga, tundra, and the base-poor pine savannas and pocosins of the southeastern coastal plain. Adequate documentation of North American land snail biodiversity thus requires investigators to effi ciently collect and accurately identify individuals of this group. This paper presents a set of annotated keys to the 65 species in this family known to occur in North America east of the Rocky Mountains. The distinguishing taxonomic features, updated county-scale range maps, and ecological conditions favored by each are presented in hopes of stimulating future research in this important group. Key words: microsnail, biodiversity, ecology, biogeography, taxonomy For the last dozen years, our interests in terrestrial Adequate documentation of this diversity thus requires gastropod biodiversity have lead us individually and investigators to effi ciently collect and accurately identify collectively to observe molluscan communities over most of individuals from this family. Unfortunately, neither has been North America, ranging from central Quebec, Hudson’s Bay common.
  • List of UK BAP Priority Vascular Plant Species (2007)

    List of UK BAP Priority Vascular Plant Species (2007)

    UK Biodiversity Action Plan List of UK BAP Priority Vascular Plant Species (2007) For more information about the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UK BAP) visit https://jncc.gov.uk/our-work/uk-bap/ List of UK BAP Priority Vascular Plant Species A list of UK BAP priority vascular plant species, created between 1995 and 1999, and subsequently updated in response to the Species and Habitats Review Report, published in 2007, is provided in the table below. The table also provides details of the species' occurrences in the four UK countries, and describes whether the species was an 'original' species (on the original list created between 1995 and 1999), or was added following the 2007 review. All original species were provided with Species Action Plans (SAPs), species statements, or are included within grouped plans or statements, whereas there are no published plans for the species added in 2007. Scientific names and commonly used synonyms derive from the Nameserver facility of the UK Species Dictionary, which is managed by the Natural History Museum. Scientific name Common Taxon England Scotland Wales Northern Original UK name Ireland BAP species? Aceras Man Orchid vascular Y N N N anthropophorum plant Adonis annua Pheasant's- vascular Y U N N eye plant Ajuga chamaepitys Ground-pine vascular Y N N N plant Ajuga pyramidalis Pyramidal vascular Y Y N Y Bugle plant Alchemilla acutiloba a Lady's- vascular Y Y N N mantle plant Alchemilla micans vascular Y Y N N plant Alchemilla minima Alchemilla vascular Y N N N Yes – SAP plant Alchemilla monticola vascular Y N N N plant Alchemilla vascular Y N N N subcrenata plant Alisma gramineum Ribbon- vascular Y N N N Yes – SAP leaved Water- plant plantain Apium repens Creeping vascular Y N N N Yes – SAP Marshwort plant Arabis glabra Tower vascular Y N N N Yes – SAP Mustard plant Arenaria norvegica Arctic vascular N Y N N subsp.
  • Scotland 2014 Outer Hebrides & the Highlands

    Scotland 2014 Outer Hebrides & the Highlands

    Scotland 2014 Outer Hebrides & the Highlands 22 May – 7 June 2014 St Kilda Wren, Hirta, St Kilda, Scotland, 30 May 2014 (© Vincent van der Spek) Vincent van der Spek, July 2014 1 highlights Red Grouse (20), Ptarmigan (4-5), Black Grouse (5), American Wigeon (1), Long- tailed Duck (5), three divers in summer plumage: Great Northern (c. 25), Red- throated (dozens) and Black-throated (1), Slavonian Grebe (1), 10.000s of Gannets and 1000s of Fulmars, Red Kite (5), Osprey (2 different nests), White-tailed Eagle (8), Golden Eagle (1), Merlin (2), Corncrake (2), the common Arctic waders in breeding habitat, Dotterel (1), Pectoral Sandpiper (1), sum plum Red-necked Phalarope (2), Great Skua (c. 125), Glaucous Gull (1), Puffin (c. 20.000), Short- eared Owl (1), Rock Dove (many), St Kilda Wren (8), other ssp. from the British Isles (incl. Wren Dunnock and Song Thrush from the Hebrides), Ring Ouzel (4), Scottish Crossbill (9), Snow Bunting (2), Risso’s Dolphin (4), Otter (1). missed species Capercaillie, ‘Irish’ Dipper ssp. hibernicus, the hoped for passage of Long-tailed and Pomarine Skuas, Midgets. Ptarmigan, male, Cairn Gorm, Highlands, Scotland, 3 June 2014 (© Vincent van der Spek) 2 introduction Keete suggested Scotland as a holiday destination several times in the past, so after I dragged her to many tropical destinations instead it was about time we went to the northern part of the British Isles. And I was not to be disappointed! Scotland really is a beautiful place, with great people. Both on the isles, with its wild and sometimes desolate vibe and very friendly folks and in the highlands, there seemed to be a stunning view behind every stunning view.
  • Conserving Europe's Threatened Plants

    Conserving Europe's Threatened Plants

    Conserving Europe’s threatened plants Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Conserving Europe’s threatened plants Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation By Suzanne Sharrock and Meirion Jones May 2009 Recommended citation: Sharrock, S. and Jones, M., 2009. Conserving Europe’s threatened plants: Progress towards Target 8 of the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK ISBN 978-1-905164-30-1 Published by Botanic Gardens Conservation International Descanso House, 199 Kew Road, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3BW, UK Design: John Morgan, [email protected] Acknowledgements The work of establishing a consolidated list of threatened Photo credits European plants was first initiated by Hugh Synge who developed the original database on which this report is based. All images are credited to BGCI with the exceptions of: We are most grateful to Hugh for providing this database to page 5, Nikos Krigas; page 8. Christophe Libert; page 10, BGCI and advising on further development of the list. The Pawel Kos; page 12 (upper), Nikos Krigas; page 14: James exacting task of inputting data from national Red Lists was Hitchmough; page 16 (lower), Jože Bavcon; page 17 (upper), carried out by Chris Cockel and without his dedicated work, the Nkos Krigas; page 20 (upper), Anca Sarbu; page 21, Nikos list would not have been completed. Thank you for your efforts Krigas; page 22 (upper) Simon Williams; page 22 (lower), RBG Chris. We are grateful to all the members of the European Kew; page 23 (upper), Jo Packet; page 23 (lower), Sandrine Botanic Gardens Consortium and other colleagues from Europe Godefroid; page 24 (upper) Jože Bavcon; page 24 (lower), Frank who provided essential advice, guidance and supplementary Scumacher; page 25 (upper) Michael Burkart; page 25, (lower) information on the species included in the database.
  • Fall 2013 NARGS

    Fall 2013 NARGS

    Rock Garden uar terly � Fall 2013 NARGS to ADVERtISE IN thE QuARtERly CoNtACt [email protected] Let me know what yo think A recent issue of a chapter newsletter had an item entitled “News from NARGS”. There were comments on various issues related to the new NARGS website, not all complimentary, and then it turned to the Quarterly online and raised some points about which I would be very pleased to have your views. “The good news is that all the Quarterlies are online and can easily be dowloaded. The older issues are easy to read except for some rather pale type but this may be the result of scanning. There is amazing information in these older issues. The last three years of the Quarterly are also online but you must be a member to read them. These last issues are on Allen Press’s BrightCopy and I find them harder to read than a pdf file. Also the last issue of the Quarterly has 60 extra pages only available online. Personally I find this objectionable as I prefer all my content in a printed bulletin.” This raises two points: Readability of BrightCopy issues versus PDF issues Do you find the BrightCopy issues as good as the PDF issues? Inclusion of extra material in online editions only. Do you object to having extra material in the online edition which can not be included in the printed edition? Please take a moment to email me with your views Malcolm McGregor <[email protected]> CONTRIBUTORS All illustrations are by the authors of articles unless otherwise stated.
  • Coregonus Lavaretus Complex 1.4 Alternative Species Scientific Name 1.5 Common Name (In National Language) Whitefish 2

    Coregonus Lavaretus Complex 1.4 Alternative Species Scientific Name 1.5 Common Name (In National Language) Whitefish 2

    European Community Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (92/43/EEC) Fourth Report by the United Kingdom under Article 17 on the implementation of the Directive from January 2013 to December 2018 Supporting documentation for the conservation status assessment for the species: S6353 ‐ WhitefishCoregonus ( lavaretus) SCOTLAND IMPORTANT NOTE ‐ PLEASE READ • The information in this document is a country‐level contribution to the UK Reporton the conservation status of this species, submitted to the European Commission aspart of the 2019 UK Reporting under Article 17 of the EU Habitats Directive. • The 2019 Article 17 UK Approach document provides details on how this supporting information was used to produce the UK Report. • The UK Report on the conservation status of this species is provided in a separate doc‐ ument. • The reporting fields and options used are aligned to those set out in the European Com‐ mission guidance. • Explanatory notes (where provided) by the country are included at the end. These pro‐ vide an audit trail of relevant supporting information. • Some of the reporting fields have been left blank because either: (i) there was insuffi‐ cient information to complete the field; (ii) completion of the field was not obligatory; (iii) the field was not relevant to this species (section 12 Natura 2000 coverage forAnnex II species) and/or (iv) the field was only relevant at UK‐level (sections 9 Future prospects and 10 Conclusions). • For technical reasons, the country‐level future trends for Range, Population and Habitat for the species are only available in a separate spreadsheet that contains all the country‐ level supporting information.
  • Fauna of New Zealand Ko Te Aitanga Pepeke O Aotearoa

    Fauna of New Zealand Ko Te Aitanga Pepeke O Aotearoa

    aua o ew eaa Ko te Aiaga eeke o Aoeaoa IEEAE SYSEMAICS AISOY GOU EESEAIES O ACAE ESEAC ema acae eseac ico Agicuue & Sciece Cee P O o 9 ico ew eaa K Cosy a M-C aiièe acae eseac Mou Ae eseac Cee iae ag 917 Aucka ew eaa EESEAIE O UIESIIES M Emeso eame o Eomoogy & Aima Ecoogy PO o ico Uiesiy ew eaa EESEAIE O MUSEUMS M ama aua Eiome eame Museum o ew eaa e aa ogaewa O o 7 Weigo ew eaa EESEAIE O OESEAS ISIUIOS awece CSIO iisio o Eomoogy GO o 17 Caea Ciy AC 1 Ausaia SEIES EIO AUA O EW EAA M C ua (ecease ue 199 acae eseac Mou Ae eseac Cee iae ag 917 Aucka ew eaa Fauna of New Zealand Ko te Aitanga Pepeke o Aotearoa Number / Nama 38 Naturalised terrestrial Stylommatophora (Mousca Gasooa Gay M ake acae eseac iae ag 317 amio ew eaa 4 Maaaki Whenua Ρ Ε S S ico Caeuy ew eaa 1999 Coyig © acae eseac ew eaa 1999 o a o is wok coee y coyig may e eouce o coie i ay om o y ay meas (gaic eecoic o mecaica icuig oocoyig ecoig aig iomaio eiea sysems o oewise wiou e wie emissio o e uise Caaoguig i uicaio AKE G Μ (Gay Micae 195— auase eesia Syommaooa (Mousca Gasooa / G Μ ake — ico Caeuy Maaaki Weua ess 1999 (aua o ew eaa ISS 111-533 ; o 3 IS -7-93-5 I ie 11 Seies UC 593(931 eae o uIicaio y e seies eio (a comee y eo Cosy usig comue-ase e ocessig ayou scaig a iig a acae eseac M Ae eseac Cee iae ag 917 Aucka ew eaa Māoi summay e y aco uaau Cosuas Weigo uise y Maaaki Weua ess acae eseac O o ico Caeuy Wesie //wwwmwessco/ ie y G i Weigo o coe eoceas eicuaum (ue a eigo oaa (owe (IIusao G M ake oucio o e coou Iaes was ue y e ew eaIa oey oa ue oeies eseac
  • Biodiversität Von Schmetterlingen (Lepidoptera) Im Gebiet Des Naturparks Schlern

    Biodiversität Von Schmetterlingen (Lepidoptera) Im Gebiet Des Naturparks Schlern

    Gredleriana Vol. 7 / 2007 pp. 233 - 306 Biodiversität von Schmetterlingen (Lepidoptera) im Gebiet des Naturparks Schlern Peter Huemer Abstract Biodiversity of butterflies and moths (Lepidoptera) of the Schlern nature park (South Tyrol, Italy) The species diversity of Lepidoptera within the Schlern nature park has been explored during the vegetation periods 2006 and 2007. Altogether 1030 species have been observed in 16 sites, covering about one third of the entire fauna from the province of South Tyrol. Fifteen additional species have been collected during the diversity day 2006 whereas further 113 species date back to historical explorations. The species inventory includes 20 new records for South Tyrol which are briefly reviewed. Among these speciesMicropterix osthelderi, Rhigognostis incarnatella and Cydia cognatana are the first proved records from Italy. Further two species from the surroundings of the Park include the first published records ofPhyllonorycter issikii and Gelechia sestertiella for Italy. Site specific characteristics of Lepidoptera coenosis are discussed in some detail. Historical aspects of lepidopterological exploration of the Schlern are briefly introduced. Keywords: Lepidoptera, faunistics, biodiversity, Schlern, South Tyrol, Italy 1. Einleitung Der Schlern übt als einer der klassischen Dolomitengipfel schon weit über 100 Jahre eine geradezu magische Anziehungskraft auf Naturwissenschaftler unterschiedlichster Coleurs aus (Abb. 1). Seine Nähe zum Siedlungsraum und vor allem die damit verbundene relativ leichte Erreichbarkeit haben wohl zur Motivation mehrerer Forschergenerationen beigetragen, das Gebiet näher zu untersuchen. Zusätzlich war wohl die Arbeit von GREDLER (1863) über Bad Ratzes für manchen Entomologen ein Anlass die Fauna des Schlerns näher unter die Lupe zu nehmen. Dies gilt auch für Schmetterlinge, wo erste Aufsammlungen bereits in die Mitte des 19.
  • The Nature Conservancy Research in Scotland

    The Nature Conservancy Research in Scotland

    The Nature Conservancy Research in Scotland • • a • • to • a • I • • I • • II • I I • á NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL The Nature Conservancy Research in Scotland Report for 1968-1970 Thel Nature Co nservancy Scottish Headquar ters 12 Hope Terrace Edinb urgh EH9 2AS 1970 á Cont ents Page STA FF LIST ( V) I NT ROD UCT ION 1 GROUSE RESEARCH GROUP I. Introduction . 6 2. Red gro use populations 7 3. Ptarmigan populations 10 4. Red grouse behaviour . 10 5. N utrition in red grouse and ptarmigan . 11 6. Viability and behaviour of young red grouse and ptarmigan . 15 7. Red gro use in Ireland . 16 8. Telem etry studies of red grouse . 17 9. The effect of rad io tra nsmitter s, carried by red grouse, on their biology . 18 10. Development and aggressive behaviour in the red grouse in ca ptivity . 19 1 l. The feeding ecology of red grouse in N .E. Scotland 20 12. Nutrition and behaviour of ca pt ive red grouse 21 13. M ountain hares . 22 14. M ovements and home range in the black grouse 22 15. Huma n impact on animal populations in the Ca irngorms 23 RA NG E ECOLOG Y RESEARCH GROU P I. Introd uction . 27 2. Conseq uence of species poverty in the uplands 28 3. Effects of herbivores on range vegetation types 30 4. Birch regenera tion in rela tion to Site chara cteristics 31 5. Effect of shade on the growth of birch . 32 6. G razing and the regeneration of shrubs and trees . 33 7.